Messaging on No JitterMessaginghttps://www.nojitter.com
No Jitterhttps://www.nojitter.com/sites/all/themes/license_bootstrap/images/rss_logo.png42144Copyright 2020 UBM Americas, a UBM plc companySun, 07 Jun 2020 03:28:56 -0500https://www.nojitter.com/keywords/messaging
enSun, 07 Jun 2020 03:28:56 -0500http://www.rssboard.org/rss-specificationThe Looming Zoom vs. Teams UcaaS Phone Battle https://www.nojitter.com/unified-communications-collaboration/looming-zoom-vs-teams-ucaas-phone-battle
Before the COVID-19 pandemic forced businesses to close their offices, the popularity of remote work and digitalization of the modern workplace was on an incremental rise, making it crucial for organizations to deploy platforms that enable seamless collaboration. Traditional unified communications (UC) on-premise systems have become obsolete for many modern enterprises. As organizations continue to replace old systems with new, scalable cloud services and software as a service (SaaS) solutions, the next collaboration trend on the horizon is the growing demand for cloud phone services.

The implementation of cloud phone systems is challenging due to the complexities of integrating legacy telephony features and equipment into a cloud framework. To address this, market leaders like Zoom Phone and phone systems for Microsoft Teams have taken a “premises peering” approach, which enables their cloud systems to extend into an enterprise or carrier telephony environment. Given the arms race among video conferencing and collaboration application platforms during this pandemic, the cloud phone has taken a backseat. But as we slowly reinstate back to a new normal, the cloud phone space will start heating up.

Amid the COVID-19 pandemic, Zoom Meetings and Meetings in Teams services have skyrocketed. Phone systems for Microsoft Teams have been the dominant player in cloud telephony for years, giving it a head start in the race, while Zoom Phone is still very much in its infancy. However, Zoom’s success in the Meetings space has earned it an unexpected boost in credibility with its recent Zoom Phone offering. It’s now a legitimate contender in the competition against enterprise leader, Microsoft.

When it comes time to make a purchasing decision, many companies lean on traditional UC providers like Microsoft vs. nontraditional UC as a service (UCaaS) providers like Zoom, due to comfortability and existing relationships. By doing so, enterprises may be missing out on offerings that they didn’t know were available.

If you’re struggling to decide between the tried and true vs. the shiny and new, here are some key considerations to help you determine which cloud phone service is right for your enterprise:

Bundling PowerMicrosoft has been bundling its services for several years, and now several 365 application services are integrated with its phone system. That’s a great option if you’re already using other Microsoft 365 services like chat, meetings, etc. If you aren’t using them yet but are planning to incorporate one or more of these services in the near future, opting for the bundle makes the most financial sense. The consistency between solutions, all supported by the same provider, can be a huge benefit and driver in decision making. However, if your enterprise is already using numerous solutions, e.g., Slack for chat, and Zoom Meetings for video calls, etc., you’re likely paying for more than one solution serving the same purpose.

Zoom’s bundling works a bit differently, as it wants to be viewed as an all-encompassing collaboration solution by empowering users to expand their use of its product, especially through its phone offering. Ultimately, each company is leveraging different bundling strategies to lure customers into their phone solution. A customer’s current solution usage will have a substantial bearing on which vendor’s phone solution is easiest to absorb, from an implementation and adoption change management perspective.

Solution CostsCost is undoubtedly one of the most influential factors in determining which cloud phone service is best for your enterprise. When it comes to choosing a service provider, underlying cost factors aren’t always prepared [changed from past to present tense] clearly. One of these is the device (i.e., room systems, headsets, etc.) support. Does the service provider offer legacy device support, or do you need to factor in the cost of purchasing and deploying new devices on top of the services?

Zoom offers greater legacy device support, which means it will support more of your existing devices. That can be a cost saver as you ramp up your phone system and aim to get the most out of the device investments your enterprise has already made. Alternatively, Microsoft offers more limited legacy device support, as a play to encourage customers to use new devices based on the Microsoft Teams code base. If you don’t have existing devices at your enterprise, this isn’t necessarily a downside because you’ll need to purchase devices anyway. If your enterprise already has existing telecoms or other devices, you’ll be required to replace them with new Microsoft certified devices, which can be a costly investment.

Overall implementation costs are perhaps even a more substantial part of the cost equation. The steps to configure, test, and deploy a new phone system is generously equivalent. So is the set up for Microsoft Direct Routing and Zoom BYOC because it’s very straightforward for users. The complexity comes in managing all of the legacy system’s requirements and infrastructure, whether it’s the elevator phone unit or a PBX that configures with an outdated TDM protocol. Before IT can even get to the step of assigning a phone number, the additional planning and meticulous transformation of connecting systems often make the difference between a successful vs. a train-wreck new deployment.

Additionally, operational cost components are a critical consideration when selecting a cloud phone service. It’s important to take the costs in account beyond your traditional device support, such as the monitoring and management of your platform. It may increase your overall expenditure by spending more on IT staffing, user training, and maintenance of equipment, but it will set your business up for long-term success.

System SecurityBecause the UC market brings together several different disparate technologies, it faces unique security challenges. According to a recent study by Ribbon Communications, 62%of large companies have fallen victim to IP-based attacks, including robocalling and toll fraud. Security must be a top priority when adopting a cloud phone or any new UC service. Over the past 18 months (not just during the COVID-19 time period) all of the major UC players have experienced different security shortfalls and negative backlash. It’s a delicate balancing act to equalize end-user feature development with security and governance. Determining which platform is the best fit for your organization’s security needs depends in part on your internal IT security infrastructure.

No matter which service you choose, it’s crucial to have InfoSec teams set up best practices during integration and to enforce user responsibility as technology alone can’t bridge the gap between user error. Governing users for phone integration require a different approach than overseeing other UC-like messaging. Because data is coming from real-time conversations, and not file sharing, for example, organizations typically don’t invest as much in securing this medium, which is a common oversight.

Microsoft Teams and Zoom both can’t wait to be king in the UCaaS phone category. Both come with unique benefits and drawbacks. The key to choosing the right provider for your organization is in evaluating the finer details of deploying these platforms (bundling options, underlying costs, security, and support) and aligning those with your infrastructure, budget, and user needs.

The days of standalone communications apps that forced users to copy and paste data between platforms, save content to their desktops, share and do things like version control manually, are long gone. Most collaboration providers have integrated voice, video, meetings, and messaging in a single platform, or are in the process of doing so — some better than others. Examples include Cisco Webex, Avaya Spaces, Microsoft Teams, and Vonage Business Cloud, among others. And Zoom has added calling; RingCentral built its own video app to augment what it’s doing with Zoom; and LogMeIn added video to GoToMeeting. Zoom Phone certainly doesn’t have the same rich set of features as, say, an Avaya, and Spaces doesn’t have all the video bells and whistles as Zoom, but the capabilities are integrated and that allows users to transition seamlessly from one to the next.

Minimum Viability

In a recent appearance on Mad Money with Jim Cramer, RingCentral CEO Vlad Shmunis described the company’s competitive advantage as being “MVP,” meaning “messaging, video, and phone.” With all due respect to Mr. Shmunis, regarding collaboration, his definition of MVP should really be “minimum viable product.”

Long term, collaboration providers that don’t offer that trio of services won’t be able to compete. The only exception would be a company that offers a product so highly tuned to a particular use case that it’s worth paying for a second tool; Symphony, which offers a team collaboration tool for financial services firms, is one example. But even these companies are getting MVP religion. Symphony recently added meetings and has basic calling capabilities, too, for example.

Where does this leave Slack, a team collaboration pure-play, albeit with a best-in-class solution? The question is whether Slack can keep innovating enough in team collaboration to keep ahead of the field. The likely answer is, “No,” and here’s why: Most Slack users just use the most basic features. The switch from Slack to Zoom Chat or another platform would be fairly painless for all but the most advanced users, who often are developers.

Way to UC

One option for Slack would be to partner with a UCaaS vendor, such as it has done with Zoom for video. The problem is, while the partner model would address Slack’s need to deliver a full UC solution, customers would still be stuck paying for two platforms versus one or more. A bigger issue with the partner model is that Slack wouldn’t have control over the full stack. When Vonage moved away from Amazon Chime, which it has partnered with for video, CEO Alan Masarek made it crystal clear the reason his company built its own platform was to have total control of the end-to-end stack.

So, given that Slack needs to make an acquisition unless it wants to become the 2020 version of Netscape, why Fuze? First, there’s the obvious reason that it couldn’t afford one of the bigger-name, high-valuation providers, like RingCentral or Zoom. So that leaves the second-tier UCaaS providers, and Fuze is a good company whose valuation should be reasonable, particularly if the rumors that it’s been up for sale for a while are true.

Fuze has had somewhat of a checkered history. The technology is sound, and its strength is in large, multinational organizations, particularly those with complex deployments. These types of deployments are typically hard for UCaaS vendors, but Fuze has sophisticated technology and can offer full PSTN replacement in over 30 countries.

However, Fuze did have a reputation of being a bit of a gunslinger in the UC space, sometimes over-promising and under-delivering. But the company has changed, with an aim of improving customer service. Interviews with current customers indicate Fuze is now doing right by its customers, but shaking the past is tough. An acquisition by a company like Slack could bury the past and give Fuze a fresh start.

Right Move

The UC industry has changed, and Slack will quickly move from being a great company to one providing a feature that everyone else has. I don’t believe customers will be willing to pay for multiple platforms when “MVP” becomes the norm. Acquiring Fuze (or other UCaaS vendor) is exactly the right move for Slack. If the rumor is true, we’ll soon know. If it’s not, maybe Slack should consider it.

Editor's note: This post has been updated from the original.

]]>Unified Communications & CollaborationCloud CommunicationsIndustry NewsMeetingsMessagingTeam CollaborationSlackFuzeM&Asite:License Global,nid:17239Thu, 28 May 2020 00:00:00 -0500Zeus KerravalaLicense GlobalNews &amp; Viewsenhttps://www.nojitter.com/unified-communications-collaboration/slack-acquire-fuze-rumor-signals-sign-timesVerizon One Talk Revisitedhttps://www.nojitter.com/mobility/verizon-one-talk-revisited
It was 2016 when I last wrote about Verizon’s One Talk mobile business service, though I have been tracking its progress both through Verizon and with my clients. While none of my clients have gone beyond the investigation stage of the service (though some user departments may have deployed it without our knowledge), things appear to be pointing up for the service, as evident by a recent Verizon analyst webinar with Derek Peabody, One Talk product manager.

First, let’s do a quick refresh on One Talk, or more specifically, the two versions of One Talk. Each version offers a form of wired-wireless integration, and both are powered by the BroadSoft (now Cisco BroadSoft) UC platform that Verizon has integrated into its cellular IMS core. Verizon notes that its BroadSoft implementation has 30+ customizations to power One Talk.

The version of One Talk that first caught my attention provides a wired Yealink VoIP desk phone and an integrated Apple or Samsung Android smartphone. Incoming business calls ring on both devices. What differentiated One Talk from the 50+ mobile UC apps that preceded it was that a user could place an outbound business call using the native dialer on the mobile device. This wasn’t news on the Android front, but it was one of the first mobile UC offerings to utilize Apple's CallKit API. Most of the other UC mobile clients have now incorporated Apple’s native dialer capability as well.

There is also a second version of the One Talk service targeted at BYOD users that requires an app on the mobile device, provides separate business and wireless numbers, and uses call forwarding to provide a simultaneous ring function that rings business calls on the mobile device. This is essentially the same mobile UC capability we have seen offered time and again with close to zero user uptake. The use case there never cleared the bar with regards to providing a benefit sufficient to outweigh the inconvenience.

Verizon apparently has the same disdain for the mobile app approach, as they highlighted the fact that while the total number of One Talk lines has increased by 63%, the number of activations of the native dialer version has increased 1800%. Further, the average line size on recent orders is topping 700, so the service is showing promise with large as well as the oft-cited SMB customers. That picture was fleshed out with some interesting use cases.

Expanding to Text

Along with the report on sales, Peabody also talked about the roadmap for planned enhancements. When I had last reviewed One Talk, I lauded the integrated voice calling experience but cautioned that we were still only talking about phone calls here. In modern business, voice is just one mode of communication, one that is increasingly being overtaken by text. As a point of reference, voice, video, text (both Apple Message and SMS), and email are beautifully integrated on my iPhone.

The two features that most caught my attention both dealt with SMS integration. First, the roadmap includes what Verizon is calling SMS-enabled hunt groups. The idea is that an incoming text can be sent to multiple stations, any one of which can respond. The response is seen by all other members of the group. I can think of lots of ways that can get used in SMB environments.

Verizon is also promising SMS-enabled desk phones. Of course, responding to SMS without a keyboard does present some problems. However, consumers are very interested in communicating via text, so any integration with the business telephone is a plus. From there, the recipient will have any number of ways to reply besides the desk phone.

Desktop Client

There was also a lot of talk about the new PC client that will include interesting integrations with Zoom and Blue Jeans. The fact that Verizon has agreed to purchase Blue Jeans makes the Zoom integration look a little dicey, but Zoom’s exploding exposure due to the pandemic may make them a permanent entry on everyone’s “must-have” list.

The PC client’s ability to store a user’s Zoom or BlueJeans credentials once and then forward them to contacts via SMS was pretty slick. The other neat feature was the ability to provide a window or “sidecar” with an incoming call continuing contextual information about the caller. Along with the basic name and number info, the sidecar can display recent emails, upcoming meetings, and even CRM events from Salesforce.

Conclusion — Rome Wasn’t Built in a Day

It’s scary to think, but I’ve been tracking this mobile UC capability for well over a decade, and while the idea of an integrated wired/mobile service for business users has great appeal, it’s still unclear what capabilities users really want out of it. We’ve had copious examples of what people don’t want, but at long last, we might finally be focusing in on what capabilities will really help users get their jobs done more efficiently and effectively — without driving them crazy in the process.

I fully believe that a truly integrated capability requires the full participation of the carriers, particularly the mobile ones. While Verizon presented some interesting use cases, I’ve yet to see anything that would hold the potential for a real break out capability. I’m pretty certain that the breakout capability exists, it’s just that we haven’t found it yet. And when we do find it, we might not recognize its potential until someone uses it in a way we never envisioned.

The idea is that we need to keep pecking away at the problem and keep trying out new things. Frankly, most of the productivity-enhancing capabilities for business communications have been found in the smartphone’s native functions, and the fact that the user had the same tools for both business and personal communications virtually sealed the deal.

However, the wireless network knows where you are, and where the party calling you is. We’ve seen a million examples of how location, SMS, and things like shadow numbers can power services like Uber, but all that seems to be done despite the carriers!

One Talk as we have it is a good first step, but hopefully, it’s an indication of direction. Implementing BroadSoft was a little bit out of the box for mobile carriers, but carriers are going to have to throw the box out the window if they intend to have any real impact on the enterprise communications market. Having started my career in the carrier environment (including a stint at AT&T), I know how hard that will be for them. But if they’re going to be in this game for serious, it’s time to get the cleats on.

To stop the spread of the coronavirus (COVID-19), companies worldwide are issuing work from home directives that are exponentially scaling remote working. Companies across the globe are rapidly working to develop strategies to sustain, support, and connect a more dispersed workforce. One of the challenges organizations face in supporting a remote workforce is to provide the tools, resources, and solutions employees need to communicate, collaborate, and remain productive without compromising security.

As this crisis continues to unfold, organizations are first addressing the top priority of securing the health and safety of employees. Next, the focus will be on developing or reshaping critical business continuity plans to ensure a high level of operations and minimize disruptions in a very fluid and challenging environment. As part of this process, IT leaders are evaluating how well its organization’s technology infrastructure supports a decentralized work environment and taking action to equip employees with the tools, devices, and collaboration platforms needed to keep operations running securely and smoothly.

Even before COVID-19, organizations grappled with this issue as remote working over the last 15 years continued on an upward trend, increasing 159% since 2005 and 44% over the last five years. The unfortunate spread of the disease is rapidly accelerating remote working, making it the norm today. A March 2020 Gartner online poll found that among 805 responding organizations, 88% now encourage or require employees to work from home, regardless of whether or not they show COVID-related symptoms.

Many organizations are finding that they lack the technology infrastructure critical to supporting the shift in workplace dynamics to a more distributed workforce. 54% of HR leaders in a Gartner poll indicated that poor technology, infrastructure, or both, is the biggest barrier to effective remote working.

Remote workers need robust collaboration solutions to communicate effectively with internal and external stakeholders. If companies don’t provide access to these solutions, employees will turn to unsecure consumer-grade messaging applications like WhatsApp and Facebook Messenger for business communication. While consumer messaging apps have evolved beyond messaging into communications platforms that enable voice and video calling, access to content and the sharing of content, the usage of these platforms can introduce serious cybersecurity and compliance risk to the enterprise.

Another byproduct and potential security threat of the widespread remote working norm is an increase in employee use of their own devices for business. BYOD (Bring Your Own Device) has been on the rise in recent years. A recent Messaging At Work report found that that 30% of respondents prefer to use their own device for work. The rise in BYOD is also fueling the use of consumer-grade messaging apps as business communication tools. The report also found that usage of non-regulated consumer messaging apps has become common in the workplace, with 50% of respondents indicating they use these apps for mobile work communications.

This issue should be a major concern for enterprises as employee use of consumer-grade messaging apps weren’t built to be secure at the enterprise level. Opening the door for hackers to use these platforms to infiltrate enterprise networks and gain access to sensitive company information could be critical to performance. Video communication platform, Zoom, is one example of a consumer-grade app that has soared in popularity since the onset of the stay-at-home order. It has since come under fire for its lack of security, leading many enterprises to ban the meeting app from business communications.

A recent McKinsey article on remote working lessons from China noted that “security concerns add a layer of complexity to the technological side of remote working, and can have serious consequences. In particular, when employees aren’t aware of safe practices or switch to unauthorized tools to get their work done.” The article went on to say, “doing it right requires giving employees the tools they need to be productive while managing data confidentiality and access.”

Enterprises are striving to ramp up to support increasing numbers of remote workers. As this happens, organizations might be tempted to address the security issues of using these consumer-grade messaging apps for business communication by providing staff training on their usage or implementing corporate policies and controls to govern the use of these applications.

These measures aren’t the answer to protecting data and security. The fact is, it’s difficult, if not impossible, for organizations to monitor conversations and interactions via consumer messaging apps. To lock down business communication, organizations need to provide purpose-built secure mobile messaging platforms with features employees need and the data security that will allow IT leaders to sleep at night.

The ongoing challenge for IT as the global pandemic shifts more employees to remote working is to ensure that employees can communicate and collaborate productively without compromising data security.

RCV adds to the video solutions glut… Cisco Webex Meetings, Avaya Spaces, GoToMeeting, Zoom, which has long been RingCentral’s video partner, and many more. In its press release, RingCentral described its differentiator as being unified, fast, trusted, reliable, global, open, and smart. It certainly hit all the buzzwords, and this comes across as very “me too.” No offense intended to RingCentral, but every video vendor claims to be these things.

During an analyst briefing, I had the opportunity to use RCV and see how it worked. My take is that it’s a solid, albeit very basic, video offering — a “Skype merged with Zoom lite” aesthetic. The user interface is a black screen with some video tiles. People can use it to meet, and the product has persistent chat and recording capabilities, for a couple of advanced features. In fairness, Zoom has a similar plain look and feel, but people like it because it just works and works well. Time will tell if RCV will have the same kind of response.

An interesting aspect of RCV will be how it handles room systems. Zoom has done considerable work to make the Zoom Room experience a seamless one, and. RingCentral should be prioritizing work on the RCV-based room system it has in beta. This room system will be for customers that sign on for RCV.

Meantime, RingCentral Rooms, based on Zoom Rooms, has always been available and will continue to be supported, Anand Eswaran, president and COO of RingCentral, assured me. And, existing RCO customers will see no change in their room experience. At some point, if an existing RCO customer chooses to use the RCV product, they’ll have to update the video software running on tablets and computing devices, but they won’t need to change the hardware setup. It’s not clear on how well RCV will work with some of the newer devices, like Neat, that were specifically designed for Zoom.

The real differentiator for RCV is the tight integration with RCO. I think most industry watchers would agree that users want an integrated solution. Having to run RingCentral and Webex or even RingCentral and standalone Zoom adds to complexity and drives costs up, with the price of two licenses instead of one. The key is that RingCentral now has control over the video stack, and that’s fundamental for the product’s evolution. When Vonage moved to “One Vonage,” Vonage CEO Alan Masarek stressed how important it is to “own the stack.” RingCentral now has full control over the evolution of video and can enhance the product the way it wants to instead of having to wait for Zoom to make updates.

Curious what others thought about RCV, I talked to a couple of RingCentral resellers that have looked at the product. One described the product as “OK but glitchy,” and the said it was “not as smooth as Zoom.” But, both agreed RCV is fine as a 1.0 release. Likewise, they agreed that RingCentral is a fantastic, fast-moving engineering organization, and said they expect the company to work any glitches or bugs out of the product quickly. It’s certainly solid enough to sell as an embedded part of RCO, particularly to new customers that have never seen the Zoom-based RingCentral Meetings (RCM) option.

Adding Avaya

As for ACO, Avaya and RingCentral announced the product’s general availability (see related No Jitter post). That gives partners three options – RCO with RCV, RCO with Zoom-based RCM, and ACO. That certainly looks like alphabet soup, and begs the question of who sells what to who. Based on reseller feedback and an email exchange with Eswaran, below is how I see the market for each.

Starting in Q2, new RingCentral customers get RCO with RCV as the default. However, Zoom-based RCM will still be available for customers requesting it.

Pricing will be the same regardless of which bundle the customer chooses. Zoom does have some functionality, such as virtual backgrounds, and touch up that RCV doesn’t have. So, customers may choose Zoom video over native RingCentral in the short term.

Existing customers with Zoom-based RCM will continue to use the product. If they want to switch to RCV, then RingCentral will help them with that.

ACO will be most appealing to existing Avaya customers where the customer wants to retain its investment in phones.

Some analysts and other industry insiders have shared with me that they feel RingCentral having its own video would create a war between the company and Zoom. In this “war,” RingCentral would replace Zoom video with its own software, and Zoom would use its phone business to attack RingCentral on the calling front. That might happen down the road, but for now, the two appear to be allies.

From my understanding, RingCentral reupped its contract with Zoom for the next three years. Zoom Phone doesn’t have the features to go head-to-head with RingCentral. Also, Zoom can’t just walk into an account and take over the phone business, as most RingCentral customers are on three-year contracts that are paid upfront annually. One of the resellers I chatted with told me that many customers are now opting for four- or five-year contracts, locking those customers down for a long time.

The video meeting space is highly competitive and fast-moving. I think RingCentral will find selling outside its base to be a huge mountain to climb. Cisco and Zoom have poured millions into R&D and have a bevy of new features coming out soon. RCV is strong enough to be included in the bundle, but it’s not ready to be the lead yet.

]]><a href="/event-type/enterprise-connect" typeof="skos:Concept" property="rdfs:label skos:prefLabel" datatype="">Enterprise Connect</a>Video Collaboration & A/VMeetingsMessagingProduct NewsTeam Collaboration Tools & WorkspacesVideo Collaboration & A/Vsite:License Global,nid:17101Thu, 02 Apr 2020 00:00:00 -0500Zeus KerravalaLicense GlobalNews &amp; Viewsenhttps://www.nojitter.com/video-collaboration-av/ringcentral-video-makes-its-awaited-debutGetting the Most Out of Microsoft Teamshttps://www.nojitter.com/team-collaboration/getting-most-out-microsoft-teams
If your enterprise has decided on Microsoft Teams, know that getting the most out of it is similar to training a dog, said Kevin Kieller, co-founder and lead strategist of EnableUC, earlier this week during his Enterprise Connect Virtual session (now available on demand). In both cases, you must be diligent in your responsibilities, reinforce best behaviors, and not be afraid when something goes awry, he said.

This is particularly important today in the wake of the work-from-home measures many enterprises have put in place in the name of COVID-19 prevention. Today, getting the most out of your team collaboration application isn't only critical for growth and success but business continuity, too.

What Team Is and Isn’t

People view Teams in a multitude of different ways. Some see Teams as a chat tool, while others see a team collaboration tool, a phone system, or online conferencing solution, Kieller said. Ultimately, Teams is "different things for different organizations," and what you’ll use it for is dependent on your specific enterprise needs, he added.

Instead of asking what Teams is, focus on what you want to get out of Teams, Kieller suggested. “The key question you need to ask yourself, your organization, and your leadership team is what do you want to do, and what do they expect from Microsoft Teams,” Kieller said.

One way to do this is by meeting with team members and figuring out their needs and documenting specific objectives for Teams. While Teams goals are dependent on the organization, many enterprises are trying to leverage Teams to better communicate internally and externally, boost engagement, reduce cost through work-from-home initiatives, and enable users to communicate using their mobile devices, Kieller said.

And while Teams can offer a range of benefits to enterprises, Kieller pushed back on the idea that Teams, in and of itself, can create revenue or boost productivity. "Bad meetings are still going to be bad, even if you use all the great meeting features inside of Microsoft Teams," Kieller commented. Teams can be part of the solution in accomplishing those larger goals, but it can’t accomplish them alone, he added.

Managing Teams, Using Analytics

When it comes to managing Teams, that task is really more about managing Outlook 365, Keiller said. To get the most out of Teams, enterprises need professionals that understand Active Directory, AD groups, and policies, Kieller said. Enterprises without the resources can either hire service providers to manage Teams or use Microsoft’s range of documentation and resources to configure it themselves, he noted.

However, the true test of whether you’re hitting your Teams goals will come down to analytics. These insights tend to come from the following four Microsoft tools:

Office 365 Admin Center — Since Teams is a part of Office 365, admins can access the 365 Admin Center to view usage reports. User activity can be broken down by seven-, 30-, 90-, and 180-day horizons, which also provides information like the last activity date and productivity scores. Additionally, admins can export the reports for further analysis, Kieller said.

Teams Admin Center — In addition, Teams has its own Admin Center, which provides additional reports. These reports can display active channels and channel messages and can provide both insights into usage and adoption.

Call Quality Dashboard (version 3.0) — This software features some built-in reports and allows for more customizable reports that allow the ability to import new templates and export data to Excel.

PowerBI— This solution allows for analytics around tracking, usage, and adoption and provides insight into user satisfaction. Similarly, this software allows you to download reports for further analysis.

Microsoft Teams in 2020 and Beyond

And like many things, Teams has changed over the years, adding a multitude of new features and functions along the way. In the last year alone, Microsoft has released 76 Teams features, including several changes in honor of its third anniversary, Kieller said. With these recent updates and more surely on the way, it’s imperative that IT communicates these changes to users and boosts adoption training. This will help ensure that users are getting the most out of the solution, Kieller commented.

Communication is going to be critical as workers adjust to the new norm of remote working. The key to all of this is trying new things and measuring analytics, Kieller said. And just like with dogs, Teams might have some tricks yet to share.

Team collaboration) applications – an alternative to face-to-face meetings – have become mainstream. These apps enable users to message and meet, share documents and data, and use persistent chat rooms to facilitate the flow of information within an organization. Enterprises can choose from many team collaboration apps, but this embarrassment of riches has a downside: Excess choices can lead to confusion.

It’s not unusual for companies to have at least two to three team collaboration tools in operation by different groups and locations. It’s easy for individuals to purchase and deploy free or low-cost cloud-based services that don’t require any hardware, without the blessing or even knowledge of their IT departments. In many organizations, different groups or departments use the collaboration application that best meets their needs. Most often, one location will use Microsoft Teams, while another uses Workplace by Facebook. Meanwhile, workers from a newly acquired company utilize an entirely different solution, creating a hodge-podge of collaborative tools. This creates challenges for both end-users and IT staff, especially when the applications are adopted without corporate or IT approval.

For example, the utility and value of team collaboration become limited when users are on different collaboration tools, as collaboration requires a critical mass and works best when everyone can easily participate in collaborative sessions. Slack users in engineering may not be able to collaborate with Microsoft Teams users in marketing, or Facebook Workplace users in a branch location, for example. The biggest challenge falls on the IT staff, which needs to support and manage multiple applications.

Many businesses that have invested in team collaboration apps must now determine whether to continue supporting multiple applications or consolidate and standardize on one platform. Each approach offers benefits and challenges. Organizations that support several tools claim they allow groups of workers to use the ones they prefer and give users more choice. Products like Mio, 8x8 Sameroom, and CafeX Challo create interoperability and enable communication between various team collaboration applications, providing another option for organizations. Additionally, software companies are progressing at embedding the tools needed for a specific job and provide connectors to the other packages when users need to message within a group. However, supporting various tools can be taxing on IT, and opens privacy and compliance issues.

One standardized application is easier to manage and integrate with the company’s UC solution while making it easier for different groups to collaborate seamlessly. However, organizations with multiple applications that decide to consolidate face another challenge – how best to migrate users from one collaboration product to another – this involves migrating content, conversations, and workflows.

At Enterprise Connect, I’ll be moderating an end-user panel to discuss the pros and cons of having consolidated or multiple collaboration tools, how to manage multiple tools, and what IT leaders and managers need to know to get the best results from these applications. Attendees will hear from enterprise IT professionals representing various perspectives and approaches, including:

Strategic Financial Solutions, which supports a variety of technologies and vendors, including Workplace by Facebook, Slack, Microsoft, and 8x8

Craft and McCann Worldgroup, which migrated users from multiple applications to Microsoft Teams

C&S Wholesale Grocers, which had allowed each department to deploy its collaboration tools but now is gradually standardizing on RingCentral Glip

VMware, which is leveraging Mio to provide interoperability among Slack, Microsoft Teams, and other collaboration tools

We’ll cover why each organization chose its path, as well as best practices and lessons learned, providing practical and actionable insights to help you decide which approach is right for you and how to get optimal results.

I hope you’ll join us for this EC20 enterprise case study session on Monday, March 30, from 1:00 p.m. to 1:45 p.m. to learn more about this important topic. You’ll walk away with help your organization may need to get the most from your team collaboration solutions.

This post is written on behalf of BCStrategies, an industry resource for enterprises, vendors, system integrators, and anyone interested in the growing business communications arena. A supplier of objective information on business communications, BCStrategies is supported by an alliance of leading communication industry advisors, analysts, and consultants who have worked in the various segments of the dynamic business communications market.

It’s always made sense to merge these products, and that’s presumably why they’re already in a suite. Tighter integration should’ve already happened. This unified app is so logical that Google probably won’t do it. Google is great at new ideas but tends to leave the polished implementation to others — most commonly Microsoft.

I’m an avid G Suite user. Chrome is my primary browser (and app), and I also use an Android phone and a Chromebook. I think web-based apps make tremendous sense, and I love the innovative features that Google has created in its solutions. But I can’t help but notice that other vendors develop these ideas further.

Google can’t claim the unified app as its own innovation. Several vendors, including Microsoft, Cisco, RingCentral, and Vonage, now offer one. The other vendors took years to do it because they had to develop or acquire companies, create the solution, and get customers to update their clients. Google had all the apps and doesn’t utilize clients, so it is unclear what’s taking so long.

In this case, Google is clearly behind, but I usually feel Google is ahead. Google’s innovations are clearly changing the industry for the better, but these benefits are often outside the G Suite ecosystem.

Consider the following examples.

Cloud-Delivered Office Productivity

It’s had a few different names in the beginning, but G Suite was the first significant web-based office productivity suite to hit the market. It became available back in 2006, well before Office 365 came on the scene. In its early days, G Suite couldn’t match Office in feature richness. Instead, it offered compelling capabilities such as simultaneous user collaboration, automatic saving, and simplified access from any device.

With the launch of Office 365 in 2011, Microsoft disrupted its own office productivity monopoly. Microsoft has rapidly evolved its services, and Office 365 now provides a cloud-delivered, broad suite of web-based office applications. It also gives users the power of traditional software clients, something Google never developed. Microsoft has successfully pivoted its dominance in Office productivity from software to SaaS. Google has evolved its suite, but insignificantly. Google fell short of its first-mover advantage.

The New Browser Wars

Microsoft surprised us all last year when it announced it would adopt the Chromium engine in its Edge browser. Industry watchers breathed a collective sigh of relief: The browser wars — particularly IE vs. Chrome — were no fun for anyone. Developers had to choose which browser to support, and too often, the answer was to abandon web support and create client apps instead. Development of web apps was delayed, and WebRTC sat on the sideline for years. With Microsoft’s announcement, it seemed Chrome won and Microsoft lost the great browser battle.

But it’s not so simple. It turns out that Microsoft’s new Edge browser is getting great reviews. It has all the benefits of Chrome, including compatibility and extensions, without some of the drawbacks. Specifically, Edge has improved privacy and security. For the first time in years, it’s “cool” to install a Microsoft web browser. It appears Microsoft is in the process of hijacking Google’s leadership position in browsers.

Notebooks and Laptops

Unfortunately for Google, the story isn’t much different when it comes to Chromebook. Nearly a decade ago, Google introduced the Cr-48, a machine that would eventually evolve into Chromebook devices. At the time, having a portable computer that’s only useful when connected to the Internet was a bit of a crazy concept. Back then, connectivity was far harder to find.

Chromebooks were inexpensive, secure, versatile, and easy to maintain. They’ve always been a bit limited, but that was the trade-off for an expensive, secure device. Today, the concept makes much more sense. Unfortunately, the Chromebook hasn’t kept up with market changes. Comparable PCs are now less expensive, and the Chromebook options are limited. There are no Chromebooks with built-in LTE networking, and only one model (discontinued) had a fingerprint sensor. Chromebooks are indeed reliable, but PCs offer more for less. And, I’ve never found a purpose for my Chromebook’s stylus.

Looking ahead, the plot thickens. Microsoft recently introduced the Surface Pro X, which uses a new ARM chipset. Not all Windows apps can run on it, but one reviewer has already crowned it “the most extravagant Chromebook” because it supports Chrome-based Edge. App support will expand, and I suspect these new ARM-powered Windows laptops will become what I expected the Chromebook to become.

Android

The Android vs. iOS space was starting to look like Mac vs. PC circa 1990. As you’ll recall, in that round, the PC beat the Mac largely by being more open. Google was on track to do the same; Android was more open the iOS. The operating system itself is open source, and multiple vendors produced Android-powered smartphones. The Android Play store was also more open with fewer restrictions on developers.

It did work, in a way. Android is now more popular than Apple’s iOS, but not better. Google’s openness worked against it — crappy apps, inconsistent upgrade policies, and some bad hardware. Today, Samsung dominates Android hardware, but with its own “enhanced” version of Android that’s inconsistent and loaded with bloatware and weakened security.

Microsoft has recently begun to embrace Android, and will even make its own Android phone. It’s now offering an improved experience for Android users, including better apps and streamlined pairing. Microsoft has even embraced Android for its Teams Meetings rooms. These new “collaboration bars,” such as the Poly Series X, offer lower costs and improved usability over the prior Windows-based room systems.

Speaking of video, did you notice that Microsoft and Cisco recently embraced native video interoperability? Two of the largest providers of enterprise video are now using WebRTC to make video interoperability easier. Do you know where WebRTC originated? It came from Google. G Suite also offers an enterprise video solution called Hangouts Meet. But it’s not natively interoperable with Microsoft, Cisco, or any other third-party video service.

Envisioning Google’s UC Future

There’s no arguing that Google is great at innovation, but innovation isn’t enough. And Google can’t expect enterprise customers to keep waiting patiently for reliable services.

I can’t wait to see what Google has in store for its mobile unified client. I’d like to see it include Google Voice too, which wasn’t included in last month’s initial rumor. Then Google would be supporting meetings, calling, chat, storage, and mail in a single client. Including email with team chat really would be innovative. I’d love to see Google nail this, especially as a web-based solution. If Google puts its mind to it, we could see a horse race.

You can hear Google’s thoughts on transformation in communications and collaboration next month at Enterprise Connect 2020, where Smita Hashim, director of product management, will participate in a mainstage session on the topic on Monday, March 30, at 10:15 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. And catch Google in the Enterprise Connect Exhibit Hall, booth 927, or at its own Cloud Next user conference April 6 to 8.

Enhancing the functionality of Amazon VPC, the Ingress Routing service allows enterprises to define routing rules at the Internet gateway and virtual private gateway that send ingress traffic to their network and security appliances, such as offered by 128 Technology, rather than having the traffic go directly to the final destination, 128 Technology said. For UCC applications, an enterprise could use Ingress Routing to direct call loads to different session border controllers, for example, said Ritesh Mukherjee, VP of product management, 128 Technology. In addition, they could use the service to intelligently route traffic for advanced sentiment analysis of calls, and “service chain with third-party devices for security," he said.

As a DevConnect partner, PCI Pal will work on integrating its telephone payment software into Avaya telephony and contact center systems, according to the companies. With the DevConnect program, Avaya provides a range of technical education, access, and support for Avaya platforms and interfaces, and technology partners receive additional benefits like joint compliance testing activities and co-marketing support on Avaya initiatives, Avaya and PCI Pal said.

NextPlane Releases Intradomain Interop Service

Federation service provider NextPlane this week unveiled intra-domain interoperability for its ConverseCloud service. Historically, disparate collaboration platforms wouldn't allow for chats or presences to be exchanged between the platforms, and traffic from different platforms wouldn't be recognized as being from the same domain, Nextplane said. This new capability allows users on different UC and team collaboration platforms — Microsoft Teams or Slack, for example — to work seamlessly across different platforms, even if when those platforms share a domain name. The ConverseCloud service accomplishes intradomain interoperability with patented technology that is able to distinguish traffic from different platforms on the same domain, and route to the proper destination, NextPlane said.

Poly Launches Latest Headset, Audio Processor

Poly revealed the EncorePro 300 headset and the MDA 500QD Series audio processor, both designed with the contact center in mind.

The EncorePro 300, an entry-level headset, features a USB connection, a flexible microphone boom, acoustic protection, and dynamic mute alerts through the attached inline call control device, Poly said. Designed for contact centers moving to the cloud, the MDA 500QD allows contact center agents to connect from either a desktop phone or PC/Mac and provides analytics through Plantronics Manager Pro (a separate software-as-a-service offering), according to Poly.

The EncorePro 300 and MDA 500QD are currently available in North America and will head to EMEA and APAC regions in March 2020, Poly said. The EncorePro 300 costs $80, while the MDA 500QD is available for $150.

Peerless Network Gets the Message

Telecom service provider Peerless Network now offers an application-to-person (A2P) enterprise messaging service, which supports end-to-end one-way and two-way SMS/MMS messaging for long codes and toll-free numbers. Additionally, Peerless Network customers will receive access to the Peerless Portal, where they can manage their A2P and other services and receive support in initial setup, Peerless Network said.

Looking for more companies and other UCC technologies? Then, make sure to check out the growing exhibitor list for Enterprise Connect 2020 and start planning your trip today. Registration is now open; use the code NOJITTER to save $200 off the current rate!

]]>Vendor StrategyMessagingProduct NewsVendor NewsAWSAvayaPolyinteroperabilityheadsetssite:License Global,nid:16810Fri, 06 Dec 2019 00:00:00 -0600Ryan DailyLicense GlobalNews &amp; Viewsenhttps://www.nojitter.com/vendor-strategy/no-jitter-roll-five-friday-1A Tale of Two Messaging Appshttps://www.nojitter.com/vendor-strategy/tale-two-messaging-apps
The summer of 2012 was the best of times. Microsoft announced that it acquired Yammer, a four-year-old social networking company for businesses. The press release stated, “Yammer adds a best-in-class enterprise social networking service to Microsoft’s growing portfolio of complementary cloud services.”

The operative word there was “growing.” Last quarter, Microsoft's commercial cloud revenue, which consists of revenue from Office 365 commercial, Azure, and Dynamics 365, increased to $11.6 billion. With cloud revenues, Microsoft has grown its business further, solidifying itself as one of the most valuable companies in the world.

However, Yammer doesn’t seem to have played a significant role. Yammer became somewhat of a footnote in the Office 365 story, and for the past several years, it has lived in the shadow of Teams, Microsoft’s other messaging application. #YearOfYammer was one of the surprising hashtags from Ignite last week.

Teams and Yammer are perceived as very different, but they have significant overlaps. Pop quiz: a message, perhaps a gif image with an @mention, is shared with colleagues. It features the author’s avatar and name, a date stamp, and offers response buttons such as like, edit, and reply. Is it Yammer or Teams?

The message could be from either – both apps can be used for individual or group interactions, and messages can be public or private conversations. Of course, they have different functionality. Teams includes a solution for meetings, telephony services can be added, and it's optimized for interactive conversations, where Yammer is optimized for a newsfeed.

Is Two Really Better than One?

For the past few years, I’ve questioned the need (for Microsoft and its customers) to have two messaging apps. When I ask about Yammer and Teams, the responses tend to be about positioning rather than technical differences. For example, I’m told that Yammer is for less urgent communications (days/weeks), and Teams is better for faster interactions (hours/day). However, that’s a use case, the platforms deliver messages at about the same speed.

Yammer has more scalability, and Microsoft doesn’t even state a maximum number of users. Teams has a maximum team size of 5,000 users. Though a big number, it makes Teams unsuitable for large, enterprise-wide messaging. Microsoft has been putting a lot of emphasis on teams, so I assumed it to be a far, far better messaging application.

Last week at Ignite, we learned that Yammer received a complete redesign with dozens of new capabilities and integrations. Yammer is the first Office 365 application built using Microsoft’s new Fluent Design system. Yammer is now a state-of-the-art Web app; Teams is a traditional (fat) client. This was a big surprise. Teams is less than three years old. I had assumed that its limitations would be addressed in various updates and that it would eventually replace Yammer.

Beyond the new look and feel, Yammer received many new features and integrations. Messages now support polls, praise, and pinning. Groups are now communities. There are enhanced ways to discover content such as improved search and new conversation filters. The new Yammer supports Live Events. In other words, the overlap between Yammer and Teams increased.

#YearOfYammer at Ignite was the worst of times for Teams. While Yammer got a big refresh, the announced updates for Teams were relatively incremental. There was no update on guest users. No mention of enterprise key management, or an increase to the 5,000-member limit. Both Lori Wright and Bob Davis, the two most visible executives leading Teams, moved to other opportunities at Microsoft. Wright’s replacement hasn’t been named. Davis, a corporate vice president, was replaced by Lan Ye, a general manager.

Maybe, I had it backwards. Maybe, Yammer is Microsoft’s strategic messaging tool. While Microsoft had its eye on Slack, both Zoom and Facebook have made significant advances into the enterprise. Zoom did so with simple meetings, and Workplace by Facebook is leveraging familiarity.

The new Yammer is only a week old and can’t replace Teams today. For example, Yammer doesn’t support meetings. However, Microsoft has already built and moved meetings before. Microsoft transitioned the meetings services associated with Skype for Business (and Skype Meeting Rooms) to Teams (and Microsoft Teams Rooms). The same is true for UCaaS.

Yammer in the Enterprise

Look how far Microsoft got with Teams in less than three years. It’s not hard to imagine a totally new Yammer emerging. Among the updates, Yammer is now integrated into Outlook, SharePoint, and even Teams. It has a growing library integrated third-party applications.

Teams may not be well suited for enterprise-wide communications and collaboration. Microsoft built Teams to beat Slack and did, but Slack isn’t generally considered an enterprise-wide application either. In September, Microsoft reported Teams had 13 million daily active users, and Slack last month reported it only had 12 million. While that’s great news for team Redmond, Microsoft also reported that Office 365 has 200 million monthly active business users — all of which have access to Teams.

The UCaaS add-on for Teams isn’t being adopted as quickly as many of us expected. Many SfB Server customers remain reluctant to migrate to Teams. Telephony is almost always an enterprise-wide application. Perhaps that is why Slack doesn’t natively offer UCaaS or meeting services.

Conversely, the new Yammer is positioned as a broad, enterprise-wide solution. According to the associated blog post, the new Yammer will “power leadership engagement, company-wide communication, communities, and knowledge sharing in Microsoft 365.”

Yammer is positioned competitively against Workplace by Facebook, which recently revealed it has 3 million paid subscribers. Workplace grew subscribers 50% in just eight months. For comparison, Slack recently reported about 100,000 paying subscribers (Microsoft hasn’t shared usage figures for Yammer). Microsoft needs to respond to Workplace by Facebook and Slack, but does it require two apps to do so? It’s a Dickens of a problem.

Enterprise-wide services are a big part of the value of Workplace by Workplace. The application’s ability to serve firstline employees is a core feature. Microsoft put its firstline initiative on Teams with apps such as Shift. However, Teams isn’t a natural fit for most shift workers, though the announced SMS passcode for authentication will help next year.

I’m now thinking that Yammer is just a few updates away from feature parity with Teams, or perhaps parity isn’t strong enough. Yammer already supports large organizations, guest users, intercompany federation, and it just got upgraded compliance capabilities. Yammer could emerge as the more strategic enterprise-wide messaging service for social networking and collaboration that supports inner and outer loop communications.

Of course, I could be dreaming. To quote Charles Dickens, “All a dream, that ends in nothing, and leaves the sleeper where he lay down, but I wish you to know that [enterprise-wide messaging] inspired it.” Well, maybe not quoted word for word.

Dave Michels is a Contributing Editor and Principal Analyst at TalkingPoitnz.